Slashdot Mirror
Rightscorp Threatens Every ISP in the United States (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Following a court win by its client BMG over Cox Communications this week, Rightscorp has issued an unprecedented warning to every ISP in the United States today. Boasting a five-year trove of infringement data against Internet users, Rightscorp warned ISPs that they can either cooperate or face the consequences. "For nearly five years, Rightscorp has warned US internet service providers (ISPs) that they risk incurring huge liabilities if they fail to implement and enforce policies under which they terminate the accounts of their subscribers who repeatedly infringe copyrights," the company said in a statement. "Over that time, many ISPs have taken the position that it was simply impossible for an ISP to be held liable for its subscribers' actions -- even when the ISP had been put on notice of massive infringements and supplied with detailed evidence. There had never been a judicial decision holding an ISP liable."
If things head south, declare bankruptcy and walk away.
If you threaten the safe harbor status of the ISPs you are going to get stomped.
Nearly 100% of the drugs that are smuggled are going over the public motorways.
Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights, however the ISP should focus their work on moving the data not being the judge of it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Does the creator(s) of the "infringed" content see any of this money or is it all hoarded by these "rights groups"?
If they see any of it, then please, by all means, rape and pillage Comcast, etc (mostly Comcast, Fuck You Comcast) as much as possible, otherwise it's just money changing from one evil hand to another...
Who do we hate more?
So, I now assume that:
If you are caught driving around with copyrighted material, your drivers license is revoked?
If someone hears copyrighted music playing over a phone call, your phone line is terminated?
If a broadcaster accidentally broadcasts some copyrighted material without license, all their views/subscribers the service terminated?
That land of the free must be a wonderful place to live, what with all those 'protections' and all..
Oh, I forgot didnt I, civil violations over the internet are the new terrorism, and must be crushed by the state. Silly me.
At least the general public still get their fair half of copyright, by the timely entry into the public domain of the works that WE, through the tax
funded state, have protected for the holders. Oh wait, damn! how did that happen?
Make sure you discuss all contracts, deals, etc over the phone now.
Since, by this logic, you can therefore require the phone company to file papers against the person at
the other end, and in fact to cut off their phone service if they repeatedly cause you a problem.
Should bring a whole new level of fun to iffy craigslist deals.
Nice! that shouldnt backfire at all... No, really, I am sure.
I mean, we prosecute mailmen for drug trafficking. We prosecute telecoms because terrorists use their phonelines every day to conspire against the United States. We prosecute sulfur miners murder, since they provide society with the element required to make gunpowder, which enables mass murderers via guns. When a company goes bankrupt due to mismanagement, the CEO always ends up penniless for the damage he caused.
In our country, if you can't catch the people who break laws, we ALWAYS make sure some unaffiliated distant party takes the fall for it.
Get the justice department to bring racketeering charges against Rightscorp.
Threatening an entire industry should bring consequences.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Just because something has a copyright doesn't mean it is illegal to share it. If the owner of the copyright allows their content to be shared on site x, then it is ok. Therefore, how is an ISP supposed to know a content's owner has given site "x" the right to store/share/distribute their content. Also, that right could be granted for an hour, a day, a month, or longer. Most mainstream artists license their work to be used via multiple venues. There is no real way for an ISP to know who has a legitimate right to store/share/distribute content for any particular time period. It would be like holding UPS responsible for me shipping antibiotics to someone. They don't know the contents of the package and if they did, they don't know whether the recipient has a legal prescription for that medication.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Demand that the ISPs become common carriers.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It took IBM FOURTEEN YEARS to put down SCO group.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.
The problem of course is that Rightscorp is a shadow entity, and attacking it directly will be difficult. You'll end up at the doorstep of the copyright cartel. Which i'm shocked hasn't been a target up until now.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!
As someone else said: one direction this could go, is that ANY traffic that isn't sent in the clear could be classified as some sort of copyright infringement. That would even include https:/// traffic, since technically an ISP is not supposed to be snooping on that; under current laws they would be committing a cybercrime if they did. Also anyone using TOR or any other onion-routing network would have to be considered potentially infringing on someone's copyright, since it's encrypted and therefore they would have to assume that it's something illegal. Add to this the well-known fact that technology-ignorant (or just power-hungry; you be the judge) politicians, government officials, and law enforcement all would love it if all encryption was outlawed (except, of course, for them, and doubtlessly the rich 1%, who will have 'exemptions' because they're 'important' or somesuch bullshit; but I diverge..) and everything was sent in the clear -- even banking transactions, I'm sure, since they want to know where every penny you have is going (you might be funding terrorism, or buying something illegal!), all of which would essentially make the Internet completely unusable for any serious purposes; after that point only a fool would use it for anything, knowing that every single byte that goes in or out would be sifted and analyzed even worse than it is right now..
Nope, nope, nope.. 'Rightscorp' needs to be destroyed, completely erradicated; they are part of the Cancer that is killing the Internet; they are why we can't have nice things. Them, them, fuck them. ISPs should not be part of law enforcement. ISPs may be the gateway to the Internet, but they should not be the GATEKEEPERS.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
There must be a workable solution for people to exchange data amongst themselves without everything they do broadcast to every copyright shakedown company and LEA in the world.
It has always been universally understood those interested in obtaining or distributing "illicit" goods and services would be required to at least put some effort into concealing their activities, watching their backs and limiting trading networks to guard against having to suffer consequences.
Once shit like Napster started everyone who wanted to benefit from the underground got it without ever having to actually venture underground. Virtually no risk/input effort required commensurate with their illicit gains.
There are a number of political problems from illegitimacy generated by laws a critical mass of people both disagree with and routinely break to corporations having too much influence or effectively short circuiting matters in the governments domain. Yet my primary concern is the continual damage the type of very detailed and complete information about majority of illicit shit people are trading using bit torrent online is causing to the Internet.
If these SIGs can't see anything they not only can't enforce anything themselves they lose the ability to use insane treasure troves of data detailing vast majority of all P2P participants and exactly what they are doing to petition governments to fuck up the Internet even more.
Take a look at the market cap..
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...
For less than $5 Million dollars an ISP could buy these idiots out and fire them.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Pretty much across the board you are wrong. Patents and Patent protection existed for a few hundred years, but it was a measurable patent award on real inventions. While the machine was patented ideas were not, so competition existed and people created competing products. They could not copy the exact machine, but the first run is not normally the best. Go look at how many variations of a Cotton Gin, automobile, motor bike, Steam engine, etc.. etc.. etc.. existed. People could see that something worked and smarter people got ideas on emulating and improving. We have thousands of years of innovation by improving whats there, which would and could not ever happen if people claimed to own idea like shitbag companies do today.
Amazingly the successful people did not normally starve to death because someone "stole" their idea.
People often point to Tesla and Edison and I agree that Tesla was shat upon, but he did not die broke because of the fued. Tesla decided to stop petitioning and building small things, and went to huge inventions costing boatloads of wealth, attempting build free power for everyone. It's a nice altruistic goal, but won't make any money or attract investors.
You would similarly lose the same arguments against Copyrights by using facts.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You know why Rightscorp is "threatening"? Because they have no chance of winning.
If they had a case they'd just directly sue instead of threatening. It's quite obvious.
But sure, let's see how Rightscorp goes against telecom giants. LET THEM FIGHT
Nothing would please me more than mutual destruction in this case. Rebuild everything from scratch.
Think VPN. And, speaking of VPN, why can't an ISP have its own VPN and use it as default, unless a user wants a routable IP address.
When I browse on my cell phone or tablet, and go to view my network settings, I see my IP is 10.x.y.z. This is called "Carrier grade NAT"
and is just one breath away from VPN. But my local cable ISP gives me a routable IP by default.
Naw, neither Comcast nor Rightscorp are (technically) part of the government.
So you punish the whole family because little Jimmy has downloaded some movies? What's to prevent signing up for another account in another family member's name? Internet access is almost a utility these days, as crucial to living in the modern world as power and water. Denying it to the whole family because one member has abused it, or a neighbor has guessed the WIFI password, seems excessive. What about businesses that NAT their traffic through a single IP but don't have the resources of an ISP to determine who the culprit is. Seems like too many innocents will be punished in their aggressive approach to dealing with the problem.
...and some popcorn.
On second thought, there isn't enough popcorn in the world to cover this level of chutzpah.
This sounds like Hail Mary pass, make it or break it for Rightscorp. It looks like there are only two realistic outcomes:
1) They win big and are owed 50 gazillion kabillion bleptillion dollars (all the money on Earth times 2 plus infinity), or
2) The court will incinerate them down to the molecular level and what's left over could be cleaned up with a Dustbuster.
I'm betting on incineration.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Rightscorp *already* won in court. They sued Cox, the fifth largest ISP in the country. To fix the situation, a few words need to be added to the relevant law, the DMCA.
While we're at it, also adding a significant penalty for filing negligent DMCA notices would go aa LONG way to fixing the other problems related to the issues the act was intended to address.
Well...IIUC summary judgment is a very high bar to reach. And if that's what this is about, then the whole headline, story, etc. is a pile of crap. Summary judgments are issued before the trial and avert the trial.
So if that's what this is about the whole story is click-bait...except the part that RightsCorp is using a lack of summary judgment as an excuse to threaten all the ISPs. If that's what's going on this is an even more reprehensible summary than usually occurs...and is good grounds for doubting every single thing that Slashdot posts.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Rightscorp *already* won in court. They sued Cox, the fifth largest ISP in the country. To fix the situation, a few words need to be added to the relevant law, the DMCA.
While we're at it, also adding a significant penalty for filing negligent DMCA notices would go aa LONG way to fixing the other problems related to the issues the act was intended to address.
Honestly, I suspect at this point it might be worth floating a law that basically says that the moment your demands to somebody to settle gets hard to distinguish from extortion? It will automatically result in you losing the case, possibly with you having to pay for everybody's legal costs. That, and basically point out that we need to let a third party be assured that they're safe--if you're going to insist Alice, who has an established reputation of borderline-at-best extortion via lawsuit, be helped to reach Bob by Charlie? Then Charlie should be absolutely safe legally if this time Alice finally faces criminal charges.
Note that I'm suggesting this across the board, too--you might well have an easier time getting this into law if you have it be just civil suits in general, especially since I suspect you could sell it to companies as protecting their asses too. After all, they might not always be playing Alice...
haha,. Good luck with that.
Going against ALL ISP's in the US is like trying to go against God.
Rightcorp will lose. They might as well declare bankruptcy now and walk away.
In this case, existing law already covers both your point about "extortion" and safe harbor from liability. What it doesn't cover adequately is RightsCorp's high volume of negligent complaints.
First, extortion. Suppose I scratch your car, a big scratch. You want $2,000 to have it repainted. I offer $100 to have just the scratch covered with touch up paint. You're not happy with that because even with the touch up paint, the damage will be visible. You say "if you don't pay to have my car painted, I'll take the issue to court. I'll sue you for the $2,000." Is that extortion? No, it's not extortion to state that you'll pursue a claim that you believe to be legitimate. It would only be extortion if you said "if you don't pay for my car, I'll lie and sue you for sexual harassment". Does Rightscorp believe they have a legitimate complaint? The court ruled that they do! And by the letter of the law, they *should* have won. Cox didn't do what the law says they must do in order to avoid liability. Since Rightscorp is pursuing an arguably legitimate claim, it's clearly not extortion. (Not that I LIKE Rightscorp, but the court ruled that their claim was correct.)
Cox could theoretically counter-sue for the cost of handling negilgent notices, but that's a side issue.
The DMCA is mostly about providing safe harbor to carriers such that they can't be sued by either the copyright holder or the person accused of violating copyrights, provided that they follow the prescribed process. The carrier can't be sued by anyone for what they the carrier does, if the carrier does the process outlined in the DMCA. Cox chose not to follow the DMCA process with Rightscorp notices. (Because Rightscorp sent a lot of questionable notices and apparently Cox didn't realize they could just tell the customers to fill out a counter-notice form, if they weren't actually violating.)
...that Rightscorp execs have the rights to all her under-the-table dealings and are going to release them if the piracy doesn't stop. Then I can finally applaud an addition to the Clinton Body COunt.
Hi there drinkypoo. Your idea is still as stupid as the first time this week you said it. Your 'mesh network internet' would rapidly become a haven for pedophiles trafficking in child porn, and other criminals and their criminal activity, including invading other people's computers on the network, stealing their data and personal information, and stealing their identities; the FBI would step in, there would be lots of arrests, and before too long the whole practice would be outlawed, ruining it for everyone, and mesh networks would be regulated to within an inch of their lives just like drone-toys are now, all because of some jackasses and assholes who can't control themselves. So think we'll skip that and deprecate people like you who come up with such fucktarded concepts instead and avoid all the hassle.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It seems an unsure thing that ISP should be required to 'police' their users activities. ISP primarily sell access to the web.
Seems more appropriate that ISP provide infringers' info (who and where they are). Then Rightscorp can enforce those rights directly.
It just seems that ISP should nt be held liable for users' infringements.
Sorry, dear deserving artist. Sue the infringer.
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
The thing to look up is Indian wootz steel. It has huge amounts of carbon (1.5%C) and a lot of chrome among other things. There are people that say the art was lost in the 18th century in Europe, but that's just a case of moving on to less difficult materials in a place where they could be made. Elsewhere around the world the technique was still used.
> quite hard for anybody to justify charging $100 for forwarding notices
The DMCA doesn't require service providers to forward notices. It requires them to follow a specific process, but mailing things isn't part of that process.
The first step, which very much applies to the problem "notices", is determining whether or not the communication is in fact a qualifying DMCA notice at all. (Many of Rightscorp's alleged notices did not meet DMCA requirements.) You can easily spend a couple of man-hours on a handling a case, sometimes a few hours. For a rough estimate of the cost, twice the employee's salaries - you have to pay for their office, computer, health insurance etc as well as their salaries.